asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state on what grounds he has now approved as having been validly made the appointment of rate collectors purported to have been made at the meeting of the South Tipperary County Council on the 7th June last; and whether in view of the charge made by a member that by forcible and unlawful detention he was prevented from attending the meeting, and the Minister's assurance given in the Dáil on the 14th June that he would not make a decision until the full facts had been made known to him, he will state what the full facts are, the source from which the information has been obtained, and why he has taken a decision in the matter before the charge of forcible and unlawful detention has been disposed of by the Courts.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appointment of South Tipperary Rate Collectors.
I have approved the appointments of the three rate collectors made by the Tipperary (S.R.) Council at their meeting of the 7th June, 1960, on the grounds that the appointments were validly made by resolution of the Council.
In regard to the alleged prevention of a member of the Council from attending the Council meeting of the 7th June the facts are that two persons are charged with conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose in that connection. None of the three persons appointed by the Council at the meeting in question is charged with any offence.
I took the decision to approve the appointments in view of the fact that they had been validly made, that the collection of the rates in the districts in question had become a matter of urgency and that there were no adequate grounds for refusing to sanction the appointments.
In view of the fact that at least one of the appointments made on the 7th June was made by the casting vote of the chairman and in the circumstances in which, as the Minister says himself, a charge is brought against certain persons that one member of the county council was prevented from being present does the Minister think that public decorum would not dictate that the county council even of that time, assuming that no local election had taken place in the meantime, would almost be required by public interest to review the circumstances in the light of the charge made and to rescind the motion of appointment, or any or all of the appointments, made on the 7th for the purpose of examining the situation? Further, does the Minister deny that had the old council continued they would have had power to reconsider the matter, to rescind the motion made on the 7th and, if necessary, to review the matter again and to make other appointments, if necessary?
The position in regard to the council is this, irrespective of whether it is the previous council or the recently elected council. Having made the appointments on the 7th June and having forwarded those proposals to me after their resolution, they or their successors were not empowered thereafter to rescind that motion. Therefore, it remained for me to do one of two things: either to refuse to sanction or to sanction. Accepting the position that the decision was valid on the 7th, in so far as the resolution submitted to me was concerned, I then had the situation that. I either sanctioned those proposals or rejected them.
At the time of the submission of the proposal the county manager who was charged with the duty in regard to all proposed appointees certified to my Department that all reasonable steps were taken—this was by letter of the 1st of July—to ascertain that the applicants for the three posts possessed the qualifications as to character, age and education and were otherwise suitable. That was an indication—it is the normal indication in all such cases as these—submitted on the 1st July to my Department. At a later date in the month of August, a further letter was received inquiring whether or not we were proceeding with these appointments, again from the local authority and the manager who did not in any way retract or withdraw his certification as to the steps he had taken in June as to the character, age, qualifications and other attributes of eligibility of these candidates. Nothing in the reports that I have received since then indicates that, in any way, any one of the three proposed candidates is unfitted for the posts to which they have now been appointed.
That being the position up to the moment, I was then placed in the situation that in fact these candidates have certain rights in this matter and they could by way of mandamus proceedings bring the Minister for Local Government to the point where he had to make a decision. That naturally, as the House may be aware, did not arise, but what did arise was that the position was there to be rejected or accepted. The facts are that the proposition was validly made by the council on the 7th June, the three persons proposed to be appointed had in no way been shown to be unfit for the positions and I, therefore, sanctioned those three appointments.
Does the Minister realise, while considering the protection of himself and the manager— from a certain point of view—the position in which he is putting this Dáil? He is telling us here in reply to this question or in reply to just the one point that I shall dwell on, that if on an occasion upon which a county council is making an appointment one, two or more members of the council are forcibly and illegally prevented from being present——
That is not decided yet.
The Minister is telling the Dáil in the face of certain circumstances that because a vote was taken on the 7th June, that the circumstances that people were forcibly prevented from attending there does not matter and that on any future occasion upon which appointments are being made by a public body such as the county council, kidnapping may go on——
Who said it was kidnapping?
——and he now indicates that the appointment is valid and that a Government Department will stand over the validity of the appointment. That is the question I put to the Minister that overrides any of the additional questions that require to be put in this matter. Again I ask him to say positively that a county council making an appointment in a bona fide way and finding out afterwards that members of its body were forcibly and illegally——
That matter does not arise on the question.
The Minister is telling the Dáil to its face that in circumstances in which a person was forcibly removed or otherwise prevented from being there when the council cast its vote, the council are prevented from reviewing that matter in all the circumstances of the time and he says that as a Minister discharging his public duties to everybody, he would be liable to losses of one kind or another if he did not say that these men were legally appointed and if he did not give them rights. I submit to the Minister that he is telling us something which this Dáil cannot accept.
Might I ask the Minister a question? The Minister explained his attitude in regard to the allegation of kidnapping and forcible detention. He said it was no concern of the members who made the selection of the rate collectors. I should like to ask him what his attitude would be if there was an allegation made, and it was subsequently proved, that all but the quorum necessary to make the selection were forcibly detained by kidnapping?
When the latter situation arises, if it should happen while I am still in the responsible position in which I am now, I shall try to deal with it to the best of my ability. In the meantime should I not indicate to the House that what Deputy Corish has understood me to say is not what I answered in reply to the question? General Mulcahy has given the House to understand, or it is being held by the House, while a case is still untried in regard to alleged kidnapping, that it is already a fact that the kidnapping did take place. I submit that the whole question is sub judice and is not subject to discussion in this House. Over and above that let me again say explicitly that I am dealing with the situation as I find it—that the decision of the council was validly made on the 7th June—and further, in regard to the three proposed appointees, the three appointees of today, I am presuming, as is the law of the land, that they are innocent of any complicity in the case now before the court. I think I am right in presuming them to be innocent until they are proved guilty of some offence and it is on that basis I have regarded them as suitable and as such have appointed them.
Is the Minister not now saying that, having made these appointments on the 7th June and then having seen or received reports that have been presented in the court, the county council had no power, assembling itself again, to rescind the making of these appointments for the purpose of waiting until the circumstances and the facts were known and made clear? Is the Minister not now saying this: That the county council in South Tipperary after the 7th June, having heard allegations about something that happened that prevented a member from being there, is by present law, as he reads it, prevented from meeting, reviewing the matter and rescinding that resolution? Is it not a fact that there was a rescinding of the resolution although it was by a subsequently elected county council? But the county council is a continuing body and what he is saying is, apart from the elections, that the county council as it existed on the 7th June had no legal power of reviewing this decision in spite of information that is being brought forward.
Might I ask the Minister is it not a howling public scandal that the Minister for Local Government, having given his word in this House that he would keep the question of sanction under review until he was satisfied as to whether there had been any improper kidnapping or detention of the member concerned, when two men are before the courts charged with that very crime to which he referred when he gave the undertaking and when the matter is in the process of investigation, has intervened to give his sanction before these two men have been called on to answer to the court for the very offence he said he would keep under consideration and withhold sanction until it had been clarified? Is that not a public scandal?
To whom is the question directed?
To the Minister for Local Government. Is it not a public scandal that these appointments should be sanctioned because the people opposite want to have three Fianna Fáil supporters pushed into rate collectorships?
The Minister says that the appointments are legal. Does that not mean that irrespective of whether the charge of kidnapping is proved or not these appointments will stand?
The appointments have been sanctioned.
The Minister has not said whether this sanction will stand, whether or not the charges are proved.
Order!
There is the man who will keep me in order, not the Minister for Social Welfare.
Will the Minister not say whether, if subsequently the charges are found proven, he will decide that the appointments should not have been sanctioned?
The leader of the Opposition has, wittingly or unwittingly, stated that there is a question of kidnapping in this case. The only matter that I am really concerned with is whether or not any of the persons proposed for this appointment may, by reason of their connection with this matter, have proved themselves unfit in any way for the appointment. I am quite satisfied that all the associated facts in regard to this matter are known to me as well as they can be known to anybody and none of the people concerned in these appointments has proved himself by reason of any association with the matter to be in any way unfit.
Then kidnapping can go on in any circumstances in which it is desired to interfere with a Local body in their appointment to any particular post and the fact that it does go on will not interfere with the legality of such an appointment.
The question of kidnapping may not be discussed.
We are talking about the question of the legality of these appointments.
I could start talking about the circumstances of some of the appointments made by my predecessors.
We could go back 40 years about some of the appointments that have been made.
I could go back for a long time and I shall go back if I am pushed to it.
The remaining questions for oral answer will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
Is there any objection to taking the remaining questions today?
Standing Orders will not permit their being taken.